Civic Journalism vs. Traditional Journalism

eHow
July 15, 2011

Civic journalism as a practice is based on the philosophy that journalism should work to affect change in public life. Citizens of democratic countries must have the tools to make sound decisions about public life, and journalism can be seen as the bearer of those tools. Traditional journalism is the reporting of events objectively and without value judgment. These two forms of journalism espouse contradictory philosophies, but they can work in tandem for a responsible press.

Traditional Journalism
The institution of journalism strives for the ideal of objectivity. While true objectivity can never be achieved—people inherently have a point of view and a way of presenting facts—it is the standard journalist's work to achieve fairness and balance. Reporters must take themselves out of the story, presenting the facts without judgment or analysis. From the reporting stage through final editing, news stories are put to rigorous tests of objectivity. Opinion and analysis are relegated to the op-ed page.

Civic Journalism
The Pew Center for Civic Journalism writes that journalism has an obligation to public life “that goes beyond just telling the news or unloading lots of facts.” Civic journalism requires interpretation of facts and making meaning of stories for audiences. This occurs most often on the op-ed pages, where journalists can have voice without coming under fire for subjective reporting. An editor or columnist might interpret last night’s city council meeting or upcoming ballot initiatives so citizens have points of view to take with them to the polls, for instance. Civic journalism also requires that the public have an outlet to participate in the discussion. This is achieved with the comments section online, letters to the editor and face-to-face meetings with journalists. Ultimately, civic journalism helps the public find solutions to problems of public concern by initiating and mediating fruitful discourse.

Ethics of Civic Journalism
Civic journalists are free to express opinions and different viewpoints. They have no obligation to objectivity, but they must act independently. Civic journalists cannot be the mouthpiece of a party, politician or special interest under the guise of responsible journalism; the journalist’s obligation is to the audience. Despite abandoning the notion of objectivity, civic journalists cannot disregard good journalistic practices. Good judgment, fairness, accuracy, balance and truth are vital to a successful civic press. The goal is not to dictate solutions, but create a discussion to facilitate sound public decision-making.

Problems with Civic Journalism
Not all journalists are on board with the civic journalism movement. One concern is that newspapers, most of which are for-profit business ventures, have their economic interests to grapple with first. The stories and opinions that will sell the most papers are what appear more often. Some traditionalists take issue with reporters shaping policy outcomes and “creating” news by intentionally driving citizens to action. Another problem is with public perceptions of news. The public tends to think that the press is arrogant and out of touch, and these feelings are exacerbated when newspapers start telling people what to think or, at the very least, what to think about.

References
Pew Center for Civic Journalism: Doing Civic Journalism
Poynter Institute: The Ethics of Civic Journalism: Independence as the Guide; Bob Steele; August 25, 2002
Poynter Institute: Civic Journalism Embraced, But Cautiously; Bill Mitchell; March 2, 2011

Resources
Kettering Foundation: Politics of Self-Rule: Six Public Practices